The Future State of Welfare last night

On Oct 28, 3:38*pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , J G Miller
wrote:

On Friday, October 28th, 2011 at 14:11:37h +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:
*I don't think there is a system around that can fairly do this
*dishing out cost effectively.
The workhouse system was very cost effective was it not?

That may depend on the chosen definition of "effective". *;-

What struck me about the programme was that it largely followed the common
practice of not even noticing much of the context. So here are a few points
to heat the pot if people can't resist an OT stooshie about it... *:-)

For example. The parts about someone getting c2000 quid/month for housing
benefit. Some fairly obvious questions and answers could have been directed
at the following...

Presumably this is because the landlord can successfully demand c2000/month
as rent.

Which may mean he is paying a large mortgage, Which may be because
excessive loans at high rate of interest over many years have pumped up the
property market to an economy-distorting degree The upshot of which is that
the housing benefit isn't really 'going to' the tenant on benefit. It is
being paid to someone else. So maybe the focus should move to the "someone
else" and why this is so.

Maybe those who provided a big loan and who are getting the interest which
the c2000/month rent stems from. Maybe even the case that the public purse
is passing money to wealthly investors and banks by a route that 'launders'
the process so people then blame the tenant instead. Is the landlord a fat
cat, or someone else higher up the food chain?

Alas, when such 'investigations' don't even raise such possibilities we
won't find out. We can only wonder about the extent to which that sort of
thing might or might not be going on.

At least a 'councillor' managed to point out the lack of affordable or
public housing in the specific area. But that may really be just the tip of
the iceberg of a wider set of questions and factors.

The programme could also have asked similar questions wrt people who find
that benefit pays more than work, and the 'solution' being only to pay
benefit for those who work. Which may be a round-about way of subsidising
ineffective employers, not their employees who are seen as 'claiming the
benefit'.

The way to resolve such questions would to put the 'welfare' side back into
its context in terms of the rest of the economy and social arrangements.
Simply arguing about the rules for who to pay what benefits skates over so
much.

Slainte,

Jim


The only solution is compulsory full employment, binding on both
employers and workers. We had the opportunity to achieve just that
with the nationalisation policy of the 1945 Labour Govt, but they let
the nationalised industries be a law unto themselves, running like
private monopolies with the objective of maximum profit by employing
the fewest people.

The only solution is compulsory full employment, binding on both
employers and workers. We had the opportunity to achieve just that
with the nationalisation policy of the 1945 Labour Govt, but they let
the nationalised industries be a law unto themselves,

Oh if only that were true, maybe then those industries wouldn't have
turned into such basket cases.

The politicians ran those industries, mostly into the ground, and why
on earth would you want that?

Politicians are only good at being politicians and even then only on a
good day.

In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

[snip]

If you take the simplest case, which is that of the landlord actually
owning the property outright, he has a certain sum of money tied up in
it, which could be invested very safely without having to do anything
at a rate of about 5%. If he's to own it and let it out, with all the
hassle that entails, he must make more than that to make it worth his
while.

Indeed. But overlooks the kinds of context I was talking about.

e.g. Why the cost of buying the house in the first place was so high. And
why the return on investing elsewhere (e.g. in actually setting up and
runnin a business rather than speculating in shares is unattractive.

If we assume that he is content to achieve a minimal return of just 5%,
then he needs to charge £2000 a month if he has £480,000 of capital
tied up in the property. That's easily the case with the sort of house
we saw in Islington, which John Humphrys said at the start must be
worth half a million. So, the rent charged for the property actually
seems a bit on the low side to me.

Quite possibly - given the presumption that it is inevitable that such a
property requires so much captial in the first place. Again overlooking
wondering why this is the case and where *that* money went to.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article
,
alexander.keys1 wrote:
[snip]

The only solution is compulsory full employment, binding on both
employers and workers.

I don't share your absolute certainty that what you described is the *only
solution*. Might be better to look around the world at other countries to
learn about their diverse arrangements, and to actually put on thinking
caps to learn more that might lead to alternative ways to improve the
situation. When UK politicians do that they do seem to focus rather a lot
on the USA and ideas promoted by think-tanks funded by neo-cons, etc.
Perhaps a rather narrow outlook on possible alternatives.

However my main point was simply the way the programme ignored the context
and left a 'blame the victim' atmosphere around those exposed at the
visible tip of what is happening out of view.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Quite possibly - given the presumption that it is inevitable that such a
property requires so much captial in the first place. Again overlooking
wondering why this is the case and where *that* money went to.

Property prices are high
1. Because no government dare take radical action to lower them because
of the vested interests of owner-occupiers.
2. Because the planning laws are absurd. This leads to new builds
costing far more than they otherwise would because of the premium it
puts on consented land. It also leads to perfectly good properties being
demolished when they could be renovated, and properties being build with
tiny gardens. It also encourages the building of flats, which are by
definition sub-standard housing.
3. Because of immigration.There's an obvious supply/demand thing.
Incidentally the recent report on population growth, as reported by the
BBC, said that something like 40% of popn growth in the next twenty
years would be due to immigration. But they excluded the popn growth
caused by the fact that immigrants of the last ten years will be having
big families!

Bill

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Quite possibly - given the presumption that it is inevitable that such a
property requires so much captial in the first place. Again overlooking
wondering why this is the case and where *that* money went to.

Property prices are high
1. Because no government dare take radical action to lower them because
of the vested interests of owner-occupiers.
2. Because the planning laws are absurd. This leads to new builds
costing far more than they otherwise would because of the premium it
puts on consented land. It also leads to perfectly good properties being
demolished when they could be renovated, and properties being build with
tiny gardens. It also encourages the building of flats, which are by
definition sub-standard housing.
3. Because of immigration.There's an obvious supply/demand thing.
Incidentally the recent report on population growth, as reported by the
BBC, said that something like 40% of popn growth in the next twenty
years would be due to immigration. But they excluded the popn growth
caused by the fact that immigrants of the last ten years will be having
big families!

Bill

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Quite possibly - given the presumption that it is inevitable that such a
property requires so much captial in the first place. Again overlooking
wondering why this is the case and where *that* money went to.

Property prices are high
1. Because no government dare take radical action to lower them because
of the vested interests of owner-occupiers.
2. Because the planning laws are absurd. This leads to new builds
costing far more than they otherwise would because of the premium it
puts on consented land. It also leads to perfectly good properties being
demolished when they could be renovated, and properties being build with
tiny gardens. It also encourages the building of flats, which are by
definition sub-standard housing.
3. Because of immigration.There's an obvious supply/demand thing.
Incidentally the recent report on population growth, as reported by the
BBC, said that something like 40% of popn growth in the next twenty
years would be due to immigration. But they excluded the popn growth
caused by the fact that immigrants of the last ten years will be having
big families!

Bill

On Oct 29, 1:28*pm, Bill Wright wrote:

It also encourages the building of flats, which are by
definition sub-standard housing.

Why are they by definition sub-standard? If they are designed and
constructed properly, they can be very effective, desirable places to
live. It just seems to be the British who continually bugger up this
form of housing. The Germans do it quite well, and the Americans seem
to like them, as do the Canadians and Australians.

I think it's about context (somewhat obviously) flats make sense in
cities, less so in the sticks.

On Saturday, October 29th, 2011, at 06:52:29h -0700, David Paste wrote:

If they are designed and constructed properly, they can be very
effective, desirable places to live.

It they were not dead, you could have confirmed this with
John Garlick Llewellyn Poulson and Thomas Daniel Smith,
the latter, in the 1990s lived on the 14th floor of a
tower block in the Spital Tongues quartier

http://www.bbc.co.UK/insideout/northeast/series2/tdansmith_newcastlepolitics.shtml

On Saturday, October 29th, 2011 at 15:06:24h +0100, Bob Latham wrote:

My problem is that I can't see how to stop this without the innocent
new child being impoverished and breaking my rule 1.

Both Marie Stopes and Winston Churchill proposed the same solution.